Was the Internet Explorer 8 vomit video advertisement a tad hard for consumers to swallow? Did it manage to leave an unpleasant aftertaste? No matter the reason, fact is that Microsoft has pulled the commercial altogether. Fear not, it is still available in the wild, and I even managed to embed it among the videos at the bottom of this article. I'm more than sure that you'll want to jump straight to it, so it's the last one on the bottom. However, the others are worth a watch as well, some even more entertaining and humorous than the IE8 puke ad.
Truth be told, I was going to share a very raw piece of my mind on the latest marketing effort from Microsoft. But I decided instead to be as objective as possible, and I'm going to let you put your two cents in the comments section below. The commercials are an integral part of the Better Browser/Browser for the Better effort associated with a campaign designed to feed hungry Americans for each download of Internet Explorer 8 RTW. The ads are meant to present the main features of the successor of IE7 in a comedic perspective. You be the judge of whether they make it or not.
The O.M.G.I.G.P video promises a regurgitation free browser in Internet Explorer 8 thanks to InPrivate browsing. When it first introduced InPrivate, Microsoft tried to change the leopard's spots and pass the feature off as an aid for users who would want maybe to shop for a gift online without ruining the surprise. Still, from the start end users interpreted InPrivate as a way to access and view explicit content on the web without any other people with access to the machine stumbling by mistake over the websites visited because of the information kept in history.
The remaining three videos F.O.M.S., S.Y.N.E.S.S., and G.R.I.P.E.S., manage to be less graphic, and a tad more fun. Microsoft released Internet Explorer 8 to web in mid-March 2009. Almost four months later, the Redmond company is still collecting feedback for the next iteration of IE, without sharing any details with the public.
Pathetic, did Microsoft actually pay for this? Then again if the best your brand new browser can do on the Acid3 test is fail with 26/100 then should we be surprised that Microsoft is desperate.
It looks like Microsoft is still trying what people are able to endure.
"It's Dean...he lives in our chair" represents Microsoft living and sniffing in our houses? I am pretty sure that if it wasn't Microsoft, but some other company, that company would be sued for low quality products, for lobbying, for persuading organisations to use their products even if it doesn't make sense, for cooperating with security forces to tamper with peoples' encryption and privacy even in cases, where only (controversial) Author Laws are the problem... I am pretty sure that, in the event of Microsoft Windows having the same portion of market as Linux has now, Microsoft Windows users would be called very weird because of using such a nonfunctional product. Only look at architecture of many Linux distributions and Windows: in Windows, software can be installed many ways, but there is no default safe repository with the most-needed software, where no malware is nearly-guaranteed and is tamper-proof. In Linux, software can be installed many ways too, but there is one default way of using repositories. Repositories are digitally signed, so if someone wants to spread malware, he or she has to do it globally, not only for some, so it is detectable very quickly. Also, the repositories are nearly tamper-proof with several checks, hacks are very rare and medialized, so it is safe a lot. I remember only the issue when RedHat repositories were tampered with, but it was fully detected and repaired, users were contacted and their systems were cleaned as soon as possible. Compare the possibilities to hack app install packages for windows and how to spread them and to hack app install packages for linux and how to spread them. And this example is only one small example of the differences.
